Sir, - John Teeling suggests that Irish beef considered at risk from BSE should be used to assist famine victims rather than being destroyed. Mr Teeling offered this suggestion on the grounds that the risk is so minimal that it justifies its use in famine conditions.
I have no doubt of Mr Teeling's good intentions but in our experience it would be morally and ethically wrong.
First of all there is an adequate supply of food to provide for all the citizens of this planet. When famine occurs it has more to do with war and economic mismanagement than any other factor. India, for example, has seriously insecure food supplies but it has not had an all-out famine since 1943. The reason is that it has a sufficiently robust democracy to ensure that public demand will focus government attention on regions of the country at risk to ensure that remedial action is taken in time.
Even with climatic disasters arising from drought or flooding it would be possible to avoid famine if enough resources were put into disaster mitigation and prevention strategies. The problem is that while we in the developed world respond generously when humanitarian disasters occur, we are less willing to support long-term development programmes which might help to prevent these problems in the first place.
At a practical level, using Irish beef in the manner suggested would not be efficient for a number of reasons:
The stable diet of famine-afflicted people is more likely to be maize or other types of grain. Very often this will be available for purchase in the region where the famine is taking place.
It is important that food is not dumped in a manner that would destroy local markets.
Even if the food has to be transported the economics of bulk transport and handling have to be taken into account.
Beef would cause secondary distribution problems in terms of refrigeration facilities where it has to be stored.
There is also a fundamental principle at stake. Our view in Concern is that we need to change our attitude towards people in the developing world. People are entitled, as of right, to the means to sustain life. This is an important distinction between a rights based approach and philanthropy. If we accept that people are entitled to food as a fundamental human right then we should not seek to give them what we would not use ourselves. The same principle applies to medicines.
None of this should be interpreted as an attack on Mr Teeling, whose bona fides I accept absolutely. - Yours, etc.,
David Begg, Chief Executive, Concern, Camden Street, Dublin 2.